Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2013, on the file of the 2nd respondent, whereby and whereunder the application submitted by the petitioner for recognition, was rejected primarily on the ground that the building was provided with Mangalore Tiled Roof as against the requirement of RCC Roof. Brief facts:- 2. The petitioner, was initially given recognition for starting VI standard to IX standard on 14th July 1990, by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 30th March 1994, permission was granted for opening X standard during the academic year 1993-94. The educational authorities granted temporary recognition from 1st June 1993 to 31st May 1996, for a period of three years, without teaching aid. The temporary recognition was renewed upto 18th January 2005. 3. The petitioner purchased a land to an extent of 2.25 acres in Survey numbers 66/6 and 66/7B at Sowripalayam, Vennanthur Village and constructed the school building with Mangalore Tiled Roof. The educational institution was shifted to the new building and it commenced functioning there with effect from 19th January 2005. The petitioner made an application for recognition before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent issued temporary recognition for the period from 1st June 2004 to 18th January 2005 and called upon the institution to submit an application to the 2nd respondent for ratification of shifting and permission for opening the school. Accordingly, the School preferred an application before the 2nd respondent for ratification. The application was submitted on 19th January 2005. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 17th September 2009, ratified the shifting of institution from the rented premises to the property owned by the management, subject to certain conditions. The 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the recognition would be granted treating it as a new institution. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh proposal for recognition for the new school. 4. The petitioner submitted the proposal for renewal of recognition. The 4th respondent returned the proposal dated 18th December 2009 for rectifying certain defects. The school thereafter resubmitted the application after rectification of defects. It was once again returned by the 3rd respondent with a direction to resubmit the proposal after rectifying the defects. The application was resubmitted before the 3rd respondent, who inturn forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent. The school thereafter resubmitted the application after rectification of defects. It was once again returned by the 3rd respondent with a direction to resubmit the proposal after rectifying the defects. The application was resubmitted before the 3rd respondent, who inturn forwarded the proposal to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent returned the proposal on 28th October 2012, pointing out certain defects and directed the petitioner to comply with those defects and resubmit the proposal. 5. While so, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order dated 4th April 2013, rejecting the proposal for renewal of recognition on the ground that the school failed to provide RCC Roof to the building as per the recommendation made by Justice Sampath Commission. The School was directed to take steps to obtain fresh recognition, as otherwise, it was threatened that the teaching aid would be stopped. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 19th April 2013, directed the 4th respondent to take steps to admit the existing students of the petitioner institution in the nearby school on account of non-renewal of recognition. The order dated 4th April 2013, is challenged in this writ petition. Submissions:- 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no statutory prescription that the building should be one with RCC roof. According to the learned counsel, by way of circular, the educational authorities cannot direct the change of roof and as such the rejection of application for renewal of recognition on the ground of failure to provide RCC roof, is unsustainable. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was earlier given recognition and thereafter, the building was shifted. The new building requires to be approved by the educational authorities. When it was found that the petitioner failed to change the roof into one of RCC, the second respondent was constrained to reject the application for renewal of recognition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the undertaking affidavit sworn to by the Secretary of the petitioner institution agreeing to change the roof in a phased manner within one year from July 2013. The petitioner has also agreed to complete the process of changing the roof by Academic year 2013-14. Discussion:- 9. The petitioner was earlier given recognition by the Education Department. The petitioner has been running the institution on the strength of the recognition. The petitioner has also agreed to complete the process of changing the roof by Academic year 2013-14. Discussion:- 9. The petitioner was earlier given recognition by the Education Department. The petitioner has been running the institution on the strength of the recognition. It was only thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land and shifted the educational institution. The new building was constructed with Mangalore Tiled roof. The proposal submitted by the petitioner for recognition was considered and rejected by the second respondent primarily on the ground that the building was constructed with Mangalore Tiled Roof and in the absence of RCC roof, no recognition could be granted. 10. The Tamilnadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, contains the conditions regarding grant of recognition. Rule 6 deals with grant of permission. Sub Clause (h) to rule 6 provides that No Objection Certificate from Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Services Department, should be obtained where the school is situated, but however, no thatched structure shall be in the school premises. 11. The question raised by the petitioner with regard to the roof requires to be considered in the light of the statutory provisions and the report submitted by the Commission appointed by the State Government subsequent to the unfortunate incident at Kumbakonnam. The Commission recommended that roof of the school buildings should be changed into RCC and no Thatched roof should be permitted. 12. The petitioner has now agreed to change the roof by substituting it with RCC roof. The petitioner needed breathing time to undertake and complete the work. The construction requires time and investment. The affidavit filed by the petitioner clearly shows that the Mangalore tiled roof would be substituted with RCC roof, in a phased manner on or before July 2014. 13. The only reason which weighed with the second respondent to reject the application for renewal was the failure to provide RCC Roof. Since there is no statutory requirement as on today, requiring all the existing schools to change the roof, the second respondent was not justified in rejecting the application for recognition on the ground of failure to provide RCC roof. The petitioner is agreeable for changing the roof in a phased manner. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 14. The petitioner is agreeable for changing the roof in a phased manner. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 14. The second respondent is directed to keep the application submitted by the petitioner for permanent recognition pending. The petitioner is directed to complete the work of providing RCC roof to the existing building within the time indicated in the affidavit and submit a completion report before the second respondent. The institution will be inspected by the second respondent thereafter and a decision regarding recognition would be taken on the basis of such inspection. However, it is made clear that every effort should be taken to consider and dispose of the application for recognition taken to consider and dispose of the application for recognition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of completion report from the petitioner with regard to providing RCC roof. 15. The next question relates to the conduct of institution during the academic year 2013-14. According to the petitioner, large number of students are studying in the institution. The said position is confirmed by the respondents. The students are all from the lower strata of the society. Article 21-A of the Constitution of India guarantees compulsory education to the children below 14 years. In case the institution is closed at this point of time, necessarily, the students will have to be shifted to any other institution. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that opening recognition should be given to the petitioner for the academic year 2013-14. 16. The second respondent is directed to grant opening recognition to the petitioner so as to enable the institution to function during the academic year 2013-14. 17. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.